George Delano Bush

World Net Daily ^ | January 26,2004 | Vox Day

[Zack Nguyen]

Christians will have to understand that using the state to enforce traditional morality will always backfire in the end...

Really? So which morality should government enforce? Because enforce morality it shall. Its just a question of which one.

[Texas Federalist]

You're confused. In your first paragraph, you want Bush to follow. In your second, you want Bush to lead.

Wrong. In my first paragraph, I am pointing out why Bush is doing a bad job of being a follower. In my second paragraph, I say I want Bush to lead.

I assume you have no other disputes with my statement?

[AuthenticLiberal]

While I disagree with some of what Bush did, I don't think it will cause the party any major harm.

Then obviously you don't see the GOP slide into socialism over the past 4 years as bad.

[Southflanknorthpawsis]

You could both save yourself from carpal-tunnel syndrome and just go back and replay posts of late 2000.

It's all been said before. You can copy and paste, can't you?

By the way, JOAT, I'm not a sir. "Sis" at the end of my screenname was your first clue. Most people have no problem figuring that out.

[Southflanknorthpawsis]

Thanks, deport. Interesting comments by Buchanan.

[Texas Federalist]

Everyone tries to characterize those conservatives who are discontented with the Bush administration as "chronic malcontents", "perfectionists" or something of the sort. The fact that you can't ignore is that there is a growing number of us, which dispels the notion that we were always dissatisfied. You can see it in the political discourse that you read in the commentaries every day, or in the grumblings among Republicans in Congress or political action groups like the American Conservative Union and the Heritage Foundation. I suppose there are some "purists" out there who will settle for nothing less than perfect adherence to the party platform. However, most individuals discontented with the administration are like me, Bush voters in 2000 who supported the president until he showed what appeared to them to be a platform largely inconsistent with their ideals. Some came to the realization after the Medicare plan or the immigration proposal. I did last July after the child tax credit was extended to families who pay no taxes. The fact is that these people are not chronic malcontents, they are Bush supporters who believe that his agenda has exceeded a reasonable deviation from the party platform.

[JOAT]

The complete lack of concern for anything but assuming or maintaining power.

Any political party,including Libertarian,Green or Constitution , is interested in taking ,and remaining in ,power. To think otherwise is ludicrous

You rightly state that This is the goal of every party. I am not into denying REALITY. (As others on this thread seem intent on.) It is refreshing to have a reasoned response from you, thanks.

No, what I am saying is that the Republican Party® had better rediscover its base pronto.

If the Republicans keep trying to appease Liberals, mushy centrists, or internationalists they will join the Whigs as irrelevant, and a new conservative party will emerge. It may take another 20 years, because people identify with the label longer than they do the ideals it once stood for.

Addressing your point about holding and maintaining power, of course that is the goal. However, if it is based on the "R's" having power just because they are "R's" that's a doomed position. If we no longer have an identifiable set of principles on which to stand, what is the point? Just to dance around and claim victory in November? Victory for what? Ronald Reagan was unabashedly Conservative and the electorate responded.

If we look over the fence at the Libs, we can observe they have no clear set of principles anymore. Just a desire for a large Nanny Government to keep them "safe" and provide for their every need. The electorate responds to whoever articulates a clear set of beliefs. The "Big Tent" is self-defeating in the long run.

[AuthenticLiberal]

Really? So which morality should government enforce? Because enforce morality it shall. Its just a question of which one.

False dichotomy. People like you remind me of my dad who commented that enforcing morality is necessary because you'd have people doing stuff like pissing on the sidewalk if you didn't. I see a public health argument against such behavior. Sex in public is unhealthy and disruptive behavior and thus can be banned without enforcing someone's morals. You don't need a Bible-based reason to ban disturbing the peace, thus you don't need one for outlawing public nudity, public sex, etc.

Christians are getting their asses kicked because for so long their response to the hippies was to empower the state to kick the hippies around. The pendulum has swung back and now the hippies are doing the ass kicking with the state the Christians built up. It's a vicious cycle and I doubt most of you have the common sense to see that disempowering the state is the logical solution.

[JOAT]

By the way, JOAT, I'm not a sir. "Sis" at the end of my screenname was your first clue. Most people have no problem figuring that out.

Snicker.

Oh.

Yes the screen name is so...clear.

Okay, you're a female that still has failed to address an argument thus far. The question stands.

CAN YOU DEBATE LIKE A GROWN-UP?

But of course, the answer to my question is rhetorical.

[The_Eaglet]

* Education, 60.8 percent
* Labor, 56 percent
* Interior, 23.4 percent
* Defense, 27.6 percent

This is not even Clinton-lite, this is simply armed left-liberalism.

I hope America continues to wake up to this to restore the rights of the states and the people. We need to reduce the income tax to pre-FDR levels

[The_Eaglet]

The Reform Regime-Campaign Finance Reform thread-day 46

[Vision Thing]

The fact is that these people are not chronic malcontents, they are Bush supporters who believe that his agenda has exceeded a reasonable deviation from the party platform.

You want him to follow you and others like you, not lead.

[Sabertooth]

I'm not a sir.

That I knew.

"Sis" at the end of my screenname was your first clue. Most people have no problem figuring that out.

No flame intended, but I've never had the vaguest idea what your nick meant. I thought it had some regional connotation.

[proud American in Canada]

"Actually I believe there is 23 of them, and yes, they are a waste of time."

I also believe many of them are Democrats who want us to split the conservative vote.

[Southflanknorthpawsis]

Where is the debate point? What exactly have you said that is so profound?

All I really got was that you worship guns and Bush cannot win re-election unless he does 100% of what gun nuts want and your claim to Republican credentials. Is that what you offer as an in-depth debate?

If I missed something, could you point me to where you said anything of substance?

[Southflanknorthpawsis]

LOL.......It does have a regional origin, but I won't try to explain. But I do have a brother Freeper, Northpaw, (thus the "sis") who rarely posts anymore.

[Southflanknorthpawsis]

I also believe many of them are Democrats who want us to split the conservative vote.

Yep.....I'd put money on it.

[Sabertooth]

Ah, that makes more sense.

I'd considered the northpaw/southpaw possibility, but somehow I got this Appalachian kind of idea, where the South flank of some ridge ran down into the North Pawsis river or something.

[Zack Nguyen]

Sorry, I don't see it. There is no such thing as a moral vacuum. Either the government will embrace a morality with its foundations in Christian ethical thought, or it will find something else. If it endorses a libertarian ethic, we'll see the consequences of that in spades.

Besides that, I have no idea how Christians empowered the government to "kick hippy a$$."

[gatorbait]

I tend to agree with some points, disagree with some others. I do not, in the near term,seeing the Congress growing a spine, and ,in my opinion, they have been the problem. I still believe W is the best deal through 2008. In a way, his Presidency ,I think will make more solidly construed conservatism easier to offer the public.Here's why,in my opinion. Newt came in , guns blazing and all of us were thrilled! Newt suddenly found himself courted and flattered by the lamestream press and fell in love with his image, something very dangerous to do when your adversary is the master of PR and spin. The 1995 Government shut down ,coupled with the OKC bombing were the two events saving Clinton , emboldening him, really. Bush has had to rebuild from this and has had to to deal with lawmakers who were burned badly. Sometimes,to make a major gain,a retreat, sometimes a strategically long one, has to be taken. Think about the retreat from St Vith and Werbomont as graphic examples.

Anyway, those are my thoughts and why I 'll continue to back the President.